boyst Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 ESPN - Dolphins agree to multiyear contract with CB Brent Grimes; terms undisclosed; he led team with 4 INTs Another one they said would not be signed/tagged.
FLFan Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Not retaining him long term is an indication things are not good at OBD. Parker is tough in negotiations, but he's come to terms with teams on big deals before. Why then is there a problem with Buffalo and Parker's clients? Is Parker unreasonable or are the Bills. Given Buffalo's inability to sign two of his players and Parker's rep in the NFL community, I think the issue remains with the Bills. I do not agree. Every indication is that Bills made reasonable offers to Byrd last year and this year. If his negotiating position is simply "take it to leave it", I think you have to believe that he simply wants to be a free agent before agreeing to anything. You can not negotiate with yourself, and any organization that simply pays a take it or leave it demand without negotiation would be foolish. Byrd and Parker have shown no desire to negotiate and no desire for Byrd to remain with Buffalo. It is what t is. Time to move on.
Kirby Jackson Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I agree. I am not upset as others about losing Byrd. Giving a slow, injured safety 10 million per season is not a principle that I embrace. And keep in mind that the pass rush was SO good that players such as Leonhard and Searcy wee picking of passes. What bugs me is that the Bills continue to be pushed around by Parker. This continues a very bad precedent. I am right there with you Bill. I still think that the tag should be used but in no way am I (or will I ever be) in the camp of sign him for whatever he wants. Each player has a market value that is reasonable and if Byrd exceeds that value it is a mistake to keep him. That is the basis of the analytics that everyone has been screaming to employ. It remains to be seen what the Bills do in free agency but it is not the end of the world if Byrd walks. He is a great player no doubt but I am not sure how much better he is than AW at this point. In addition, the Bills drafted 2 guys last year to help prepare them for his departure. I bet that this team could sign Anthony Collins and Louis Delmas for that same money that they were going to give Byrd. IMO, that is a better use of the $.
YoloinOhio Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I do not agree. Every indication is that Bills made reasonable offers to Byrd last year and this year. If his negotiating position is simply "take it to leave it", I think you have to believe that he simply wants to be a free agent before agreeing to anything. You can not negotiate with yourself, and any organization that simply pays a take it or leave it demand without negotiation would be foolish. Byrd and Parker have shown no desire to negotiate and no desire for Byrd to remain with Buffalo. It is what t is. Time to move on. This.
birdog1960 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Not retaining him long term is an indication things are not good at OBD. Parker is tough in negotiations, but he's come to terms with teams on big deals before. Why then is there a problem with Buffalo and Parker's clients? Is Parker unreasonable or are the Bills. Given Buffalo's inability to sign two of his players and Parker's rep in the NFL community, I think the issue remains with the Bills. the corporation seems content to retain the value of the asset. letting byrd walk likely doesn't change that value much. another losing season or 3 likely doesn't either. i think this is the lens that all fo decisions need to be viewed through.
thebandit27 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I am right there with you Bill. I still think that the tag should be used but in no way am I (or will I ever be) in the camp of sign him for whatever he wants. Each player has a market value that is reasonable and if Byrd exceeds that value it is a mistake to keep him. That is the basis of the analytics that everyone has been screaming to employ. It remains to be seen what the Bills do in free agency but it is not the end of the world if Byrd walks. He is a great player no doubt but I am not sure how much better he is than AW at this point. In addition, the Bills drafted 2 guys last year to help prepare them for his departure. I bet that this team could sign Anthony Collins and Louis Delmas for that same money that they were going to give Byrd. IMO, that is a better use of the $. This is the crux of the issue IMO...I'd love to have Byrd...but for ~40% more than what kam Chancellor makes?
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Not retaining him long term is an indication things are not good at OBD. Parker is tough in negotiations, but he's come to terms with teams on big deals before. Why then is there a problem with Buffalo and Parker's clients? Is Parker unreasonable or are the Bills. Given Buffalo's inability to sign two of his players and Parker's rep in the NFL community, I think the issue remains with the Bills. I am struggling to understand why this is becoming some mystical indication of anything. This is about money. Free agency is the place where you auction your services to the highest bidder. Bills offered at least $30 million for the next 3, Byrd camp thinks they can do better. People try to pretend its about something else, but it's not.
ALF Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I think a indoor stadium with natural grass like Arizona would make players want to stay in Buffalo.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) I do not agree. Every indication is that Bills made reasonable offers to Byrd last year and this year. If his negotiating position is simply "take it to leave it", I think you have to believe that he simply wants to be a free agent before agreeing to anything. You can not negotiate with yourself, and any organization that simply pays a take it or leave it demand without negotiation would be foolish. Byrd and Parker have shown no desire to negotiate and no desire for Byrd to remain with Buffalo. It is what t is. Time to move on. Again, buffalo has every right to counter whatever free agency deal is offered and exceed it. If they beat the offer, why does anyone think he'd turn it away?? The question the front office must ask, is this: "is Byrd so critical to the team he is worth locking up a tenth of the payroll for the next 5 years." Edited March 3, 2014 by over 20 years of fanhood
BUNCH OF MULARKEY Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Well if our money isn't green enough for him good riddance. It's like a bad relationship that just drags on, at some point just be done with it. Is it possible for the bills to just drop the franchise tag and cut him loose whenever they want? It's tempting to tag him then drop it a couple weeks after free agency, when everyone's already spent their money, just to stick it to him. I'm sure there's a gentlemans code in the league against pulling stuff like that, even though that slow prancing fairy and his agent Jackie Childs deserve it.
dave mcbride Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) I am struggling to understand why this is becoming some mystical indication of anything. This is about money. Free agency is the place where you auction your services to the highest bidder. Bills offered at least $30 million for the next 3, Byrd camp thinks they can do better. People try to pretend its about something else, but it's not. I have never read anywhere that the $30 million was guaranteed. Here is what Wawrow said: "Without revealing the full value and length of the offer, one person said Byrd would have been paid about $30 million over the contract's first three seasons." "Guaranteed" is the crux of the matter. Edited March 3, 2014 by dave mcbride
ALF Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Again, buffalo has every right to counter whatever free agency deal is offered and exceed it. If they beat the offer, why does anyone think he'd turn it away?? Because he does not want to be here ?
Kirby Jackson Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Well if our money isn't green enough for him good riddance. It's like a bad relationship that just drags on, at some point just be done with it. Is it possible for the bills to just drop the franchise tag and cut him loose whenever they want? It's tempting to tag him then drop it a couple weeks after free agency, when everyone's already spent their money, just to stick it to him. I'm sure there's a gentlemans code in the league against pulling stuff like that, even though that slow prancing fairy and his agent Jackie Childs deserve it. They can but good luck attracting other free agents in the future or in retaining their own. Players are not going to be lining up to play for a franchise that treats them that way.
plenzmd1 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I am struggling to understand why this is becoming some mystical indication of anything. This is about money. Free agency is the place where you auction your services to the highest bidder. Bills offered at least $30 million for the next 3, Byrd camp thinks they can do better. People try to pretend its about something else, but it's not. I actually think this may be the one instance not about the money..if the offer above is correct, he would take it if only about the money. Again, we dont know the details, may not be guaranteed for injury etc... But lets say the $30 is guaranteed...then this is most definitely not about the money. I sure as **** hope the Bills put a deadline on that offer of this Thursday at 5PM.
dave mcbride Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) I agree. I am not upset as others about losing Byrd. Giving a slow, injured safety 10 million per season is not a principle that I embrace. And keep in mind that the pass rush was SO good that players such as Leonhard and Searcy wee picking of passes. What bugs me is that the Bills continue to be pushed around by Parker. This continues a very bad precedent. He's way better than you seem to think he is, Bill. If you want to see the value of good safety play, I suggest looking no farther than the Seattle Seahawks. Byrd is at that level, and other teams know it. Cam Chancellor was 4.62. Dashon Goldson was 4.65. Ed Reed was 4.57. Before you say he's slow, look at the times of other top safeties. Top-line speed at the safety position ain't all its cracked up to be. Donte Whitner was 4.4. Who is the better player - Whitner or Byrd? Edited March 3, 2014 by dave mcbride
YoloinOhio Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 They can but good luck attracting other free agents in the future or in retaining their own. Players are not going to be lining up to play for a franchise that treats them that way. +1. Using the tag flies in the face of further building a team that can persist for years to come. Tagging a player is a simple way of keeping him out of free agency for an additional year, but it’s seldom used around the league. Because of the huge dollar figure associated with tagging a player (and renting them, in effect), it often has the secondary effect of disgruntling a player that the given team wants to keep... hence Byrd, 2013.Teams have largely shied away from the process of tagging players at all. There are few reasons beyond buying time that teams have to apply the franchise tag. If they upset a star player like Byrd again, he’ll likely leave at the end of the season anyway, and we’ve seen toxic players tear teams apart from the inside out. Teams, in general, don’t want to have players in their locker rooms that don’t want to be there themselves.
papazoid Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 +1. Using the tag flies in the face of further building a team that can persist for years to come. Tagging a player is a simple way of keeping him out of free agency for an additional year, but it’s seldom used around the league. Because of the huge dollar figure associated with tagging a player (and renting them, in effect), it often has the secondary effect of disgruntling a player that the given team wants to keep... hence Byrd, 2013. Teams have largely shied away from the process of tagging players at all. There are few reasons beyond buying time that teams have to apply the franchise tag. If they upset a star player like Byrd again, he’ll likely leave at the end of the season anyway, and we’ve seen toxic players tear teams apart from the inside out. Teams, in general, don’t want to have players in their locker rooms that don’t want to be there themselves. 8 teams used the franchise tag last year.
John from Riverside Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I say tag him and dare him to sit out...... We have to let the NFL know that you cant play these kind of games with this organization.
Kirby Jackson Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 8 teams used the franchise tag last year. How many players each year play under the franchise tag though? I think that is Yolo's point. You use it to buy time to negotiate a long term deal in most cases.
Recommended Posts